FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Flight 93 - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:39 am    Post subject: United 93, Dick Cheney and the Moussaoui Trial Reply with quote

From PentagonResearch.com:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/opinion.html

Quote:
United 93, Dick Cheney and the Moussaoui Trial

Why has Flight 93 suddenly taken center stage? Why have cockpit tapes and photos been released after 4 years in secrecy? Is it coincidence that the film United 93 has been promoted in conjunction with the Moussaoui trial? Is it coincidence that it will be released in theaters near the announcement of the trial verdict?

The truth is that we're witnessing a shrewd and calculated move to shift the public focus and 9/11 sentiment onto the Flight 93 story. 9/11 Truth groups have successfully started awakening people to the facts of the four events that occurred that day. Of those four events only one was in a remote, obscure field. Only one is unavailable for substantial inspection of evidence. Only one is embedded in a legend of American heroism. Plain and simple it is the last resort of the perpetrators to hide.

When was the very first mention of Flight 93 in conjunction with a story of heroism? The answer lies in an interview conducted in the vice presidents office on September 11, 2002 with CNNs John King:

Word came that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. Aides frantically called the White House to find out whether a military jet had shot it down.

'The vice president was a little bit ahead of us, said Eric Edelman, Cheney's national security advisor. He said sort of softly and to nobody in particular, 'I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.'"
CNN

So let's try and imagine the situation. Cheney and Rice are in an underground bunker. From the 9/11 Commission Report we know the phone line to the president wasn't working. Cheney had just given shootdown orders. His aides were "frantic". Attacks had already occurred killing thousands. Washington was being evacuated and false reports of every kind were flying everywhere. The aides were trying to find out if our own military had shot the aircraft down. But Cheney says, ".... sort of softly and to nobody in particular, 'I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.'" Stop and think about that for a second.

What could he have possibly based that statement on? Even his aide noticed Cheney was, a little bit ahead of us. I would go so far as to say he was a lot ahead of everybody. There was absolutely no possible way that Cheney was aware of the alleged cell phone calls and most certainly he had not heard the cockpit voice recorder. Where did he get his idea from? Was it a pre-planned story? Was it his cover story for giving illegal shootdown orders without the president's approval?

The least likely thing of all the possibilities that would've happened to that aircraft is that passengers could take control of the cockpit and cause the hijackers to crash it. There is no historical precedent for such a thing to even come up with the idea. In retrospect we were told the 4 alleged hijackers had bombs, knives, box cutters and mace. They were overpowered? Inexperienced hijackers might have lost control of a plane they had never flown before, a bomb may have gone off, or maybe it was shot down. Is there any other "official" evidence that something else took place on that plane?

In a typical Rumsfeldian slip Donald Rumsfeld in an address to the troops on Christmas Eve, made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers. But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." CNN

How similar is a plane being shot down and passenger heroes taking control of an aircraft and saving America from a fourth terrorist attack? How would the terrorists have "shot down" the plane - did they have fighter jets too? Those are two completely different concepts with no similarity at all. If you were certain of the Flight 93 story how could you even think of the notion it had been shot down? Read the CNN article referenced above to see how the complicit media scrambled to cover this slip.

With the official story crumbling rapidly and being replaced by truth, the spin doctors are as frantic as Cheney's aides were. The first effort to direct the publics attention away from the facts at the WTC and the Pentagon to Flight 93 occurred in January when the A&E channel aired its film Flight 93. The next diversion occurred March 27th when Rumsfeld made his first visit to the Flight 93 crash site in over four years and said, This is so much more personal. ... I've already been to the others and have wanted to come here because it's also such an important site. It's important to pay respect to these heroes." (Source)

Nearly the entire emphasis of the Moussaoui trial was Flight 93. For the first time in over 4 years they released the alleged tape of the last minutes of Flight 93 for the dramatic effect. Everything else vanished into a hole in a field but apparently that recording survived. Why not play the last minutes of any of the other three flights? Why not tell their story? Why not allow the full transcripts of the 9-1-1 audio recordings from the WTC? Why not the video from the Pentagon? It seems that never before viewed footage of an aircraft actually impacting the Pentagon would be more effective than a scratchy audio tape that was so hard to hear in the courtroom that they had to subtitle it.

The most interesting comment of the Moussaoui trial was, "Under cross-examination by defense attorney Edward B. MacMahon Jr., Fitzgerald [FBI] acknowledged that there was no evidence of any contact between Moussaoui and the hijackers." What? NO EVIDENCE. Washington Post

This trial was a well-crafted diversion to promote Flight 93 as a legend and give unsuspecting Americans a false sense of justice. The trial officials were even on FOX news outside the courthouse saying how accurate the film was. It hasn't even been released and they had already previewed it?

Remember, any reconstruction of Flight 93 is purely imagination. It is based on very little physical evidence from the crash site (which is only a hole), an alleged cockpit recording that has mysteriously been withheld for over four years, several alleged cell phone calls and Dick Cheneys underground bunker premonition.

The rest is pure public manipulation to direct the average person's attention away from the facts now being presented about the WTC and the Pentagon by the 9/11 Truth movement. The story of heroism connects with our emotions and makes us feel irreverent if we are ever asked to question the story. This will happen to millions of people. Look for this movie to be one of the top films of all time.

-- Russell Pickering

Read this extremely honest movie review by Cole Smithey

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl,

I agree that the whole flight 93 scenario is fed us to provide a pretext/context and give at least some credence to the hijacking scenario, real plane or not, since the other highjackings/ crash sites were so "unusual" and spectacular. This, in my opinion is one of the reasons they chose to make a movie about flight 93. It had all the necessary elements needed for people to swallow it hook, line and sinker (at least according to the official narrative).

Even if the flight was delayed, which I believe was not intentional, flight 93 was destined to go down. Was perhaps "flight 93" supposed to go down before any of the other flights reached their targets, or was it supposed to go down closer to Washington? (if it indeed was flight 93).

Is perhaps flight 93 the Achilles heel of the whole story, something that didn't go like they had planned, because, like I mentioned in a previous pos, it involved a more "realistic" scenario? Is this also why they chose to make a fictional movie about this event; to bolster a essencial part of the overall story, easing it in, so to speak, via "entertainment", supported by the little 'evidence' provided via the Moussaoui trial? There may also be a subliminal message saying; "Thou shall believe in fiction" Wink

Fabricating the crime scene of Flight 93 sure would be fairly easy, given that there seems to have been very little physical evidence, as oppose to what a crash site usually looks like. The few photos released shows a few plane parts, which, I agree, could also very easily be place these for a photo op. Where are the big chunks of plane? Why did they, according to rumors, find parts of one engine over a mile away (could be disinfo)? If the intention by having multiple attacks happen on multiple occations was to spread the investigative focus and effort, they sure seem to have spread the evidence of flight 93, because the bolk of it most certainly is not at the crash site. It is all very strange... If the parts on the pictures indeed are from the plane they claim it is from, then it looks to me like something went off inside of the plane given the brownish interior and the part of the fuselage bent outwards. But then again, that is not conclusive.

I hope the research into the strip mine company and the "fill-in" scenario proves to be fruitful, Rumpl.

BTW, I heard your photo analysis of the "flight 93 plume" reference via Killtown on Stadtmiller's National Intel Report, though the rest of the show eas crap, as it was not hosted by Stadtmiller, but by the 'Loose Change'-crew.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
greenmountainboy



Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do you guys make of this news story that appeared on a Cleveland news website September 11th at 11:45 in the morning. The story was later pulled from the website.

Here is the story:
http://web.archive.org/web/200211090...l/story14.html


Here is what it says now:

"This story has been removed from WCPO.com.
It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect."

http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/am...l/story14.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What do you guys make of this news story that appeared on a Cleveland news website September 11th at 11:45 in the morning. The story was later pulled from the website.

Here is the story:
http://web.archive.org/web/200211090...l/story14.html


The link above didn't work for me though the image of the news article was easily viewable. I found the same Flight 93 article on archive.org at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011122233605/www.cincinow.com/specials/terrorist_attack/news/story14.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos wrote:
Even if the flight was delayed, which I believe was not intentional, flight 93 was destined to go down. Was perhaps "flight 93" supposed to go down before any of the other flights reached their targets, or was it supposed to go down closer to Washington? (if it indeed was flight 93).

Personally, I doubt there was anything amiss or left to chance that day. The "crash site" was carefully chosen - a strip mine where "soft dirt" could explain the first ever airplane crash without any airplane. The rural, homespun setting - where not only are the folks reliably obediant towards authority, but immediate visitations from the FBI had them slickin' down their hair for the cameras, as they were easily psy-op'd into patriotic fever, and kindly asked to "help defeat these terrorists" by agreeing that they saw the same plane crash that "Joe down the road saw." "Hell, you folk might even wind up on the TeeVee." (I'm from this area, so I'm not speaking out of school here.)

Quote:
Fabricating the crime scene of Flight 93 sure would be fairly easy, given that there seems to have been very little physical evidence, as oppose to what a crash site usually looks like. The few photos released shows a few plane parts, which, I agree, could also very easily be place these for a photo op. Where are the big chunks of plane? Why did they, according to rumors, find parts of one engine over a mile away (could be disinfo)?

What you have to realize is that they found this engine in a pond, abut 700' away. The pond scenario is perfect - because it excuses why the engine was not burning, smoking or even hot when they found it. How they justify a perpendiculr crash where both engines hit the ground at exactly the same angle, in exactly the same dirt, and 1 buries itself 15' in the ground and another bounces away is beyond my physics training.

Quote:
If the parts on the pictures indeed are from the plane they claim it is from, then it looks to me like something went off inside of the plane given the brownish interior and the part of the fuselage bent outwards. But then again, that is not conclusive.

My first reaction to the reddish-brown metal was that t was rust, from sitting in the ground since earlier that year. But then, I'm just a cynic, I guess. Wink

Quote:
I hope the research into the strip mine company and the "fill-in" scenario proves to be fruitful, Rumpl.

Have not had a shred of luck coordinating that, due to a death in the family and other extenuating circumstances when I was back there recently.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting series of Flight 93 related videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGL9XimWCs&NR=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:22 am    Post subject: Global Research Reply with quote

PREVIOUS video was removed, but THIS one exists.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7623

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc Added: April 21, 2006
(so hopefully it will stay up permanently)

Ultra-rare news footage from the crash site of United Flight 93 which has never been seen again since 9/11.



or here: www.Takeoverworld.info/vid/9-11_Flight_93_Rare_Footage_FoxNews.flv
(need FLV player or VLC)
Back to top
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was no plane crash in Shanksville. I believe that a missile may have been fired into the forest and the crater was made beforehand. Or perhaps a UAV of some sort crashed. 9/11 Researcher Terrorcell claims to have interviewed many eyewitnesses that support his theory that a small drone was involved.

The "Shoot Down" theory, as Rumpl stated, is a red herring. It was started by flight93crash.com, which has been outed as a government-run site. It was also fueled by the purposeful 'shot down the plane over Pennsylvania' slip made by Slipper McSlippery himself, Donald Rumsfeld.

If one looks at the photos, they will realize that no plane crashed in Shanksville. The dirt inside the crater was unburnt. The grass growing near the crater and some inside the crater was unburnt. A photographer on the scene couldn't smell any jet fuel, and groundwater was tested for jet fuel, none was found. No fuel-laden 757 crashed there.

Let's look at the evidence presented in this post..



Isn't it just a little too convenient that this engine scrap fits perfectly into the backhoe bucket? We already know that the FBI was running some of the excavation equipment, so seeing as it just happens to fit perfectly into this bucket, they could have simply lowered it down and snapped a photo. Plus, the engine looks rusted.. and where did the rest of the engine go? Since it supposedly buried that far under the ground, shouldn't it be coated in dirt? And what are those strange pieces of silver? They aren't from a United Airlines 757, that's for sure. Probably just put there to be props with the engine.



This picture took 4 years to release and the insulation is missing. Not credible. How did it survive without significant fire damage when the rest of the plane disintegrated?



This photo took 4 years to be released. It seems ridiculous to say that the rest of the plane disintegrated yet this piece survived perfectly with no significant fire damage.



What is with the wires and the piece of wood? Why are they in the crater? Why isn't the black box covered in dirt? The metal holding up the box makes this look like a staged photo.



Why is it not caked in dirt? We can see part of the manufacturer logo. The first letter. That's the key to exposing this photo. It should be 'A' for Allied Signal, since that was the manufacturer, but it's a Honeywell H. Planted!



911 Researcher Amanda Reconwith put this perp-manufactured evidence at 911 movement: http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2592



AmandaReconwith also has proof that this piece of evidence was manufactured: http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2616

As for the evidence of the hijackers, there is indication that these government-trained, government-funded dupes were never on any planes. Therefore, the Ziad Jarrah evidence must have been planted. The bandana is just ludicrous. An entire plane disintegrates, but these tiny objects survive without significant damage.

I believe Flight 93 ended up in Cleveland Airport that day. Delta 1989 was deliberately landed there to act as a cover for Flight 93 landing there. One news story reported Flight 93 landed, but the story was pulled quickly (Very unusual). Shoestring is too smart for the perps, though. In his article "The Cleveland Airport Mystery", he proved through reports that two planes landed in Cleveland Airport. One of them was reported to be Delta 1989. Many of the reports didn't identify the other plane, except for the AP report that was carried by WCPO. The plane was identified as Flight 93.

People in Shanksville heard a missile and some saw a missile or UAV. The Shanksville crash site was faked. There was no plane.

[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter

You are a complete and total KNOW-NOTHING idiot and a total waste of anyones time.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
Lord Carpainter

You are a complete and total KNOW-NOTHING idiot and a total waste of anyones time.

Grumpy Cool


If you will debate like an 11 year old, you will be responded to accordingly..

Your mom. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy's getting his period, leave him alone. Wink

Hey Grumpy - I happen to have done the graphics work on a lot of Killtown's McClatchey accusations. In fact, I believe I pretty much created the whole issue (call me a stickler for reality), when I plotted her location on GoogleEarth a few years ago, and things didn't even come close to lining up - let alone display a smoke cloud that was already 700 yards across within 60 seconds of the "impact", according to Val (of course, she also swears "the plane flew right over" her house - another physical impossibility, even by the govt's version.)

At the risk of seeming as if I think McClatchey is a liar, let me just say that I think McClatchey's a liar. Laughing She's an opportunist in the least, a govt-complicit pawn most likely, and her photo has nothing to do with Flight 93's crash (assuming there was one). That's been proven, beyond a doubt. Btw, this analysis has nothing to do with the veracity of a Flight 93 crash, it's about the photo - which also has nothing to do with a Flight 93 crash.

Why not comment on the work here: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6531#6531

Let's see what you got. Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy.

Grow up before someone shoves your face in! I have to agree with the above poster. You act like an 11 year old, anything but someone who claims to be retired. Maybe you just never got picked for any team in PE class or something.

Get a life.

Hombre'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.